Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks for that. When I originally emailed bank park management to challenge the claim I never admitted liability. I didn't change the above much as I am struggling to break it down due to the urgency to send it but this is what I have sent:

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant 
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no 
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately 
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim 
(PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against 
the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 
16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the 
PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or 
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or 
contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why 
the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or 
contracts);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly 
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred 
and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the 
parking charge was allegedly incurred. Furthermore, PoC fails to 
evidence whether the defendant was actually parked on 
the claimants car park- which it wasn't;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is 
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, 
damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the 
parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is 
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant 
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out 
materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to 
adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the 
Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms 
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found 
that requiring further case management steps would be 
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. 
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant 
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites 
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim 
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, 
rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that 
the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of 
claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do 
not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not 
set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms 
and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and 
(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the 
claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it 
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have 
done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding 
objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct 
further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s 
resources to this claim (for example by ordering further 
particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case 
management).

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay 
this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this 
Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing 
which no such application may be made.

https://ibb.co/CKpjgWNf

I've filed it but it says this so not sure whether I've missed the deadline? Is there anything I can do?

https://ibb.co/CKZCpRJC

Unfortunately I'm not home until tomorrow so unable to post pictures of the PCN/ correspondence. Although I did return to the car park and take pictures as evidence which I'll post below.

Back in July 2025 a letter was received alleging that a car had been parked 'illegally'. Where the alleged infringement happened was in a car park that was next to another car park. The car alleged was parked in one car park and a correct pay and display ticket purchased (ticket is still available as evidence). The ANPR camera from the car park next door picked up the registration of the alleged car and the owner was subsequently sent a PCN in the post.

This was contested as it would appear it's an obvious error and the situation explained to bank park management via the online challenge form.

This was then refused and following the usual threatening letters from solicitors and bailiffs a county claim form has been received.

The only problem being that the claim form was issued on the 25th March and the owner has only just returned home from holiday to this letter so it doesn't fall within the 14 day period.

What's the best course of action to take now?

And yes I appealed. Using most of what you replied originally.

https://imgur.com/a/wjbsC50